4. Andrew | January 10th, 2006 at 12:28 am

Did those polls take into account all of the new voters signed up at Phish shows. You know, Joe Trippi’s army, the ones who only had cell phones….?

Is there room for prudence?

To quote the Riv. Lovejoy: “Short answer: “Yes” with an “If,” long answer: “No” — with a “But.”

What you mean by prudence is, I think, moderation. Prudence is a very positive sort of word, and skews the question a bit. In a way you are correct, it would be counterproductive to move on the conservative agenda in just this year, or even this decade. You might say the spiritus mundi isn’t quite ready for it yet, maybe they will be sooner or later, maybe not. We need to prudently, I’ll use the word, strategize/pray/hope for the time when we will be able to move the agenda and do some positive good.

The problem is that none of this applies to the issue that you are tying your argument to. Do not defend the Drug Bill. Defend highway spending before you defend the drug benefit. The way the GOP handled the prescription drug benefit was numbingly akward. First, they allowed the Left to frame the debate as between fuzzy nanny state socialism (allowing each and every one of us to take up our mats and walk) versus the evil forces of reaction (Republican plutocrats who want the old to starve and die so we can turn them into Triscuit Crackers). Second, the GOP establishment whored themselves to the pharmaceutical industry and the AARP to make sure they could get the most bloated, inefficient bill they possibly could. Last, they engaged in a slanderous campaign to portray their own base as scrooges. In the end they relied on thuggery and bribery on the floor of the House to pass the bill.

Passing the Medicare Drug Benefit was not an example of prudence. Prudence calls for engaging in a cultural debate before we move forward with the whole agenda, winning the war of ideas. In order for us to win the argument though, we have to have one, and with the other side. The Drug Bill was instead an exercise in needless cannablism that humiliated the movement and bankrupted our grandchildren.

The Wilsonian internationalists among us will be troubled to learn that a group of law students at the University of Montana are seeking to overturn WWI era sedition convictions. Sounds good to me. Most of these convictions were for off the cuff statements made by immigrants of German and East European extraction. I thought this one was pretty funny, don’t know why.

Rodewald, a German immigrant who settled with his family on 320 acres in eastern Montana, served two years in prison for suggesting in April 1918 that Americans “would have hard times” if Germany’s kaiser “didn’t get over here and rule this country.”

Finally!